''SHOULD I learn to program?'' and ''Do I have to learn to program?'' are two variants of the question probably most asked by people testing the waters of computer ownership. The answer usually boils down to an emphatic ''that depends..., but probably not.''
The professed need to learn programming has become an adjunct of that now all-too-familiar term ''computer literacy.'' Somehow the idea of being computer illiterate has been foisted upon the public as a handicap and horror that in today's world of high technology may be even worse than being illiterate in the traditional sense of the word. But the analogy is a false one that has gained acceptance because of fear of the unknown or paying too much heed to ''authorities'' who are either recent converts to computerdom or its purveyors.
True, computers are part and parcel of our daily lives now. Personal computers will be even more so in the near future, certainly at work, although perhaps not quite as vital a part of the home as the advertising would have us believe. And, true, a computer without programs is as useful as a rusty fishhook in the middle of the Gobi.
But does this mean that whoever wants to use a computer must also write the software for it? Would someone purchasing an automobile for a cross-country trip first study cartography, then proceed to obtain aerial and satellite photographs of the proposed route, and finally draw a detailed map for the whole journey? Hardly. It is far easier to go to the A.A.A. and get standard maps or that organization's special trip sheets.
Cartography is fascinating. So, for that matter, is the writing of software. But most people have to consider how much time they can spare for such an undertaking. It is not for nothing that programmers speak of software development in terms of man-years, and it is not uncommon for programmers to put in 12- to 14- hour days trying to finish a project. Do you have that kind of time to spare?
Obviously, not all program development time is measured in man- years. One could no doubt write a program for generating anagrams in a couple of days, though it would take the average neophyte the same couple of days merely to type in the 75 to 100 lines of code required. Not only can a single misplaced colon or parenthesis mark foul up the works, but it often takes an enormous amount of time to discover such a seemingly minor error.
But let me hasten to add that there are at least three good reasons for learning how to program. First, it allows you to develop software that is not available commercially, and in some cases it lets you customize purchased software to serve your specific needs better. Second, programming can be fun. If you enjoy working on puzzles, programming may well turn out to be more pleasurable than solving The Times crossword puzzle or Dr. Crypton's mind-bending puzzle page in Science Digest. Third, there is the intellectual exercise, the honing of logic skills and learning to learn, stressed by pedagogues as a perfect reason to have computers available in schools for pupils from kindergarten age on up.
Valid as all these points may be, their limitations are often overlooked by proponents who get carried away by their enthusiasm. If you were to start learning a programming language such as the increasingly popular C in your spare time, chances are you would be fairly proficient in it within a year. That is a lot of time.
Hiring a programmer to modify existing commercial software to suit your business needs would probably prove to be more effective in terms of cost. Besides, once you have mastered C, you may find another program you want to modify written in Basic. Now there is nothing wrong with learning a second computer language....
Perhaps the most telling argument against the need to learn a computer language to have precisely the software you want is the rapidly increasing selection and gradual improvement in personal computer software. Five years ago, word-processing programs for personal computers did not exist.
Today, I would hazard to guess, more than several hundred brands are available. By the time you became truly proficient at programming, chances are that whatever you set out to write would be available in some form from a software publisher.
There can be no argument with the fact that some people will derive great pleasure from programming. Trying to learn some of the basics of programming to see if you like it is like tinkering with a car as a teen- ager. Some people end up going to engineering school. Others, 20 years later, remember only enough to check the points in the distributor when the engine misses, if the car even has a distributor.
The point is, you cannot argue with the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment programming can bring to those of the right mind-set, and there is only one way to find out if you are one of them.
As to the educational necessity of learning how to program, I find it greatly overstressed. Any day now, I'm sure, some software publisher will bring out a cute little set of red floppies called The Little Computer That Could. This simple 16-disk set will be designed to take the toddler from his first simple Basic subroutine on up through the writing of a ballistics program for ICBM trajectories.
The promise is there. No doubt a few students would even conquer such a program. The vast majority, however, would end up being frustrated by the very machine that could serve them so well in the future.
Most children simply are not going to be ace programmers, and there is no need for them to be. Computers will become as common to this generation as television was to their parents. But the vast majority of parents do not repair television sets, write for television or work in the broadcasting industry in any capacity.
Programming has a place in today's curriculums - for high schools and up - just as civics and chemistry do. Computers are not, however, an all-encompassing and unique educational solution. In fact, though Cicero could never compete with computer games when it comes to ''making learning fun,'' conquering the conjugations of his lost tongue probably makes a lot more sense when it comes to learning to learn than sifting through GOTO statements in Basic, unrelated to our living language.
The professed need to learn programming has become an adjunct of that now all-too-familiar term ''computer literacy.'' Somehow the idea of being computer illiterate has been foisted upon the public as a handicap and horror that in today's world of high technology may be even worse than being illiterate in the traditional sense of the word. But the analogy is a false one that has gained acceptance because of fear of the unknown or paying too much heed to ''authorities'' who are either recent converts to computerdom or its purveyors.
True, computers are part and parcel of our daily lives now. Personal computers will be even more so in the near future, certainly at work, although perhaps not quite as vital a part of the home as the advertising would have us believe. And, true, a computer without programs is as useful as a rusty fishhook in the middle of the Gobi.
But does this mean that whoever wants to use a computer must also write the software for it? Would someone purchasing an automobile for a cross-country trip first study cartography, then proceed to obtain aerial and satellite photographs of the proposed route, and finally draw a detailed map for the whole journey? Hardly. It is far easier to go to the A.A.A. and get standard maps or that organization's special trip sheets.
Cartography is fascinating. So, for that matter, is the writing of software. But most people have to consider how much time they can spare for such an undertaking. It is not for nothing that programmers speak of software development in terms of man-years, and it is not uncommon for programmers to put in 12- to 14- hour days trying to finish a project. Do you have that kind of time to spare?
Obviously, not all program development time is measured in man- years. One could no doubt write a program for generating anagrams in a couple of days, though it would take the average neophyte the same couple of days merely to type in the 75 to 100 lines of code required. Not only can a single misplaced colon or parenthesis mark foul up the works, but it often takes an enormous amount of time to discover such a seemingly minor error.
But let me hasten to add that there are at least three good reasons for learning how to program. First, it allows you to develop software that is not available commercially, and in some cases it lets you customize purchased software to serve your specific needs better. Second, programming can be fun. If you enjoy working on puzzles, programming may well turn out to be more pleasurable than solving The Times crossword puzzle or Dr. Crypton's mind-bending puzzle page in Science Digest. Third, there is the intellectual exercise, the honing of logic skills and learning to learn, stressed by pedagogues as a perfect reason to have computers available in schools for pupils from kindergarten age on up.
Valid as all these points may be, their limitations are often overlooked by proponents who get carried away by their enthusiasm. If you were to start learning a programming language such as the increasingly popular C in your spare time, chances are you would be fairly proficient in it within a year. That is a lot of time.
Hiring a programmer to modify existing commercial software to suit your business needs would probably prove to be more effective in terms of cost. Besides, once you have mastered C, you may find another program you want to modify written in Basic. Now there is nothing wrong with learning a second computer language....
Perhaps the most telling argument against the need to learn a computer language to have precisely the software you want is the rapidly increasing selection and gradual improvement in personal computer software. Five years ago, word-processing programs for personal computers did not exist.
Today, I would hazard to guess, more than several hundred brands are available. By the time you became truly proficient at programming, chances are that whatever you set out to write would be available in some form from a software publisher.
There can be no argument with the fact that some people will derive great pleasure from programming. Trying to learn some of the basics of programming to see if you like it is like tinkering with a car as a teen- ager. Some people end up going to engineering school. Others, 20 years later, remember only enough to check the points in the distributor when the engine misses, if the car even has a distributor.
The point is, you cannot argue with the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment programming can bring to those of the right mind-set, and there is only one way to find out if you are one of them.
As to the educational necessity of learning how to program, I find it greatly overstressed. Any day now, I'm sure, some software publisher will bring out a cute little set of red floppies called The Little Computer That Could. This simple 16-disk set will be designed to take the toddler from his first simple Basic subroutine on up through the writing of a ballistics program for ICBM trajectories.
The promise is there. No doubt a few students would even conquer such a program. The vast majority, however, would end up being frustrated by the very machine that could serve them so well in the future.
Most children simply are not going to be ace programmers, and there is no need for them to be. Computers will become as common to this generation as television was to their parents. But the vast majority of parents do not repair television sets, write for television or work in the broadcasting industry in any capacity.
Programming has a place in today's curriculums - for high schools and up - just as civics and chemistry do. Computers are not, however, an all-encompassing and unique educational solution. In fact, though Cicero could never compete with computer games when it comes to ''making learning fun,'' conquering the conjugations of his lost tongue probably makes a lot more sense when it comes to learning to learn than sifting through GOTO statements in Basic, unrelated to our living language.
No comments:
Post a Comment